Net worth for Steve-O would mean his house + his cars + his stuff + his Income - his outcome, if he say he gave 1000 of his "Hard earned" money, it means, his montly balance could be something between 5-15k, another way to see the Net Worth could be, sum everything you have, and see if having that makes you lose/win/keep your money.

how ******* retarded does he have to be to just net 2,5 mil?!
******* steve-o did i dont know how many jackass movies and countless other apearances and all he has to show for it is 2,5 mill?
******* RETARD!

Going for it.
This guy shouldn't be getting red thumbs, really. This post is just Steve-O bashing celebrities for not trying, specifically by name, which is exactly what Jokexplain is doing. If he's trying to make such a difference, $1000 really isn't much either. This is still a publicity stunt, just like every other celebrity who does this stuff.

Dude. You are such an idiot do you even know what net worth is? Its not the amount of money in your bank account. Far from the whole net worth thing makes celebrities look richer than they are, dont get me wrong they`re still rich, but net worth is the value of **** they own too like their hhouse and cars. Im sure Steve O doesnt have much in the bank so dont act like you know **** cause you`re retarded and you should just delete that account cause you never do your job anymore anyways.

>You ***********
>Me explaining to you that you are ***********
>You denying that you are *********** and/or explaining how you don't care
>Me telling you that this is a childish approach
>You pretending that I am just a "le troll" or that I am the **********.

"hurr durr ur philanthropic leniencies don't match up with mine hurr durr"
Let the man donate to whoever the **** he wants, it's his money. I imagine most of you don't even have jobs, let alone donate money to anything on a regular basis

>All they do
No ******, but they do DO things like steal monkeys from labs, burn labs down, vandalize construction equipment, ETC. It's not all they do, but since they do it, you are supporting it just as surely as you are supporting any good they do. There are better environmental charities, ones that don't endanger lives and cause property damage to achieve their goals.

Philanthropic
"the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes"
If good is relative to the person that is perceiving it and jokeexplain wants a greener world then surely these actions could fit that definition?

Just because an act is extreme doesn't mean it is wrong. It gathers press coverage and keeps the charity in the public eye. The actions you describe is probably about 0.001% of the stuff that Green Peace does but those actions will garner support from the extreme left, whilst their other campaigns while get support from more neutral environmentalists.
Sometimes if their is an injustice in the world, you have to fight it. And I personally believe that abducting apes and pouring shampoo in their eyes to see if it makes them go blind, is not only and injustice but is fundamentally sick.

I bet their is some action somewhere at some point in history that was violent and bloody and extreme that you support.
Maybe dropping the A-bombs on Japan? Maybe the torture of potential terrorists in Guantanamo Bay? Maybe destruction of ancient tribal lands in Africa so that oil could be drilled from them so you can drive to work in the morning.
Everyone will at some point support an extreme means to promote an end that they feel will benefit society.

So I repeat, shut the **** up and let the man spend his money where he wants

Again, if he is using those donations to go to greenpeace, he is supporting crime, vandalism, arson. He may think their cause is good, but since their actions are crimes, he is supporting crime, and as such his actions are not philanthropic. Any violent actions, throughout history that I may support would not be supported due to philanthropy, but rather pragmatism.

Are you saying supporting Greenpeace is pragmatic? Because they are doing nothing but bring ecological work down by their criminal acts. They are actually hurting the cause of a greener world far more than helping it, so it's both as far from pragmatic and philanthropic as you can get.

Donate to the ******* WWF or something if you want to do some good. If you donate to Greenpeace, you're part of the problem, not helping with solutions.

Wow, you just glossed completely over what I wrote and basically repeated your last comment. I'm not gonna have like a fifty comment argument with someone who's not even gonna bother answering the questions I pose them

I thought that first question was rhetorical. No, his actions would not become philanthropic based on his perceptions, because the actions themselves and their objective consequences are what determines benevolence or malevolence. You can like Pol Pot and, say, have invested money into his regime, thinking it was good, as millions were killed. Does that mean what you did was good?

Some of the worst actions ever conceived have been done with good "intentions". If you'll recall, my original comment stated quite clearly that either he has been "conned into thinking this is good" or "actually supports criminal behavior". This would fall under the first statement, where he has been convinced greenpeace is good even though they are not, which makes donating to them a stupid act, not philanthropic so much as misinformed.

I hope that answers that first question, as to your later one regarding points in history I did in fact answer that in the previous comment.